By minimal we mean a piece of code that compiles clean, shows the behavior you
want to show and is as short as possible, in this case it could be more like
\version "2.22.1"
{ a'1 \break a'1 }
And a solution could look like
\version "2.22.1"
{ a'1 \break a'1 }
\layout { indent = #0 }
A hint a
On 10/7/21, 9:29 AM, "lilypond-user on behalf of Mahanidhi"
wrote:
To speak the truth I tried to have the music all together with /break
command but what was happening is that the first line was starting not aligned
with the other ones.
LilyPond has a first-line indent by design.
You
To speak the truth I tried to have the music all together with /break command
but what was happening is that the first line was starting not aligned with the
other ones.
Here a minimal example:
\version "2.22.1"
\language "english"
global = {
\key gf \major
\time 4/4
\override Glissando.st
Leo Correia de Verdier writes:
> The ”command global=” is defining a variable with a series of property
> settings (mostly), \relative is not a property, it’s a function that
> is preformed on the music inside the brackets following it.
>
> The manual is quite long, but you will eventually need t
Clear thank you.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Il giovedì 7 ottobre 2021 13:37, Leo Correia de Verdier
ha scritto:
> The ”command global=” is defining a variable with a series of property
> settings (mostly), \relative is not a property, it’s a function
Le 07/10/2021 à 12:36, Mahanidhi a écrit :
If so why the command "global=" works for every lines?
As Leo said, \global just inserts music content.
\relative is not music in itself, it is a
function applying to music. When you say
{ \relative c' { a' b' } { c' d' } }
only the { a' b' } is pr
The ”command global=” is defining a variable with a series of property settings
(mostly), \relative is not a property, it’s a function that is preformed on the
music inside the brackets following it.
The manual is quite long, but you will eventually need to go through much of it
to get what is
If so why the command "global=" works for every lines?
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Il giovedì 7 ottobre 2021 12:21, Leo Correia de Verdier
ha scritto:
> What you are doing is not only writing the each line on a separate line, but
> also writing each line as a separate (implicitly created)
What you are doing is not only writing the each line on a separate line, but
also writing each line as a separate (implicitly created) score. Since they are
in different scores they are not the same music expression and you need to
write out the \relative for each of them.
> 7 okt. 2021 kl. 11
Hello,
for storage reasons I prefer to write every single line of music on different
lines (see example: http://lilybin.com/cqud6p/1) I can't find a way to
incorporate the \relative c' command into a single block so as not to rewrite
it on every line of music. I tried with global= but it doesn't
Peace be with you, guys... ;-)
The OP's eXample is more complicated but as
far as I can tell
this is what he's aiming at.
Of course, I did some experimenting on my own before asking here on the
list.
I was aware that the problem only appears if I use my function inside a
\relative statement,
\resetRelativeOctave c'
> \arpeggio
> }
> }
He was writing a _function_ using an expression twice. Not ad-hoc code.
This function would not know what to use for c' here.
> Despite being in relative mode, all the arpeggios will now start on
> middle C. The OP's eXample
at I think he was trying to
achieve ...
arpeggio = { c e g c }
\new Staff {
\relative c' {
\arpeggio \resetRelativeOctave c'
\arpeggio \resetRelativeOctave c'
\arpeggio
}
}
Despite being in relative mode, all the arpeggios will now start on
middle C. The OP'
antlists writes:
> On 16/05/2020 23:19, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> As I say, I think this function or something similar has made its way
>>> into lilypond proper.
>
>> What advantage over the solution using make-relative that I posted do
>> you see here?
>
> Because if I understand the OP correctly
On 16/05/2020 23:19, David Kastrup wrote:
As I say, I think this function or something similar has made its way
into lilypond proper.
What advantage over the solution using make-relative that I posted do
you see here?
Because if I understand the OP correctly, what he wants is
\resetRelative
antlists writes:
> On 15/05/2020 12:28, antlists wrote:
>> There's a function Han Wen wrote for me years ago, that's made its
>> way in to standard lilypond. It's probably mentioned in the docu
>> about relative mode. Something along the lines of
>>
On 15/05/2020 12:28, antlists wrote:
There's a function Han Wen wrote for me years ago, that's made its way
in to standard lilypond. It's probably mentioned in the docu about
relative mode. Something along the lines of
c1 \highlight { c8 d e f g f e d }
\se
; >> To: "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
> >> Cc:
> >> Bcc:
> >> Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:01:06 +0200
> >> Subject: Current octave in relative mode
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a function that uses a music expression twice.
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
>> From: Klaus Blum
>> To: "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:01:06 +0200
>> Subject: Current octave in relative mode
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a function that uses a mus
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Klaus Blum
> To: "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:01:06 +0200
> Subject: Current octave in relative mode
> Hi,
>
> I have a function that uses a music expression twice
Klaus Blum writes:
> Hi David,
>
> That's perfect, thanks a lot!
> Cool to know that this doesn't require complicated tweaks and hacks...
If you think this isn't a complicated hack, you haven't looked at the
source code of make-relative...
Its three arguments, by the way, are a list of variable
Hi David,
That's perfect, thanks a lot!
Cool to know that this doesn't require complicated tweaks and hacks...
Cheers,
Klaus
There's a function Han Wen wrote for me years ago, that's made its way
in to standard lilypond. It's probably mentioned in the docu about
relative mode. Something along the lines of
c1 \highlight { c8 d e f g f e d }
\setAbsoluteOctave ...
c1 \highlight { c
Klaus Blum writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have a function that uses a music expression twice.
> My problem is:
> In relative mode, this expression can lead into a different octave. Then
> the second application of the music expression starts from that new octave.
> (See the la
Hi,
I have a function that uses a music expression twice.
My problem is:
In relative mode, this expression can lead into a different octave. Then
the second application of the music expression starts from that new octave.
(See the last two invocations of "\highlight" in the example
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
OK, done.
Everything looked great -- you even took out some pre-existing line-ending
whitespace.
Must be the excellent training I've gotten. ;) One (or maybe all) of
you guys--Trevor, Graham, or you--taught me to strip the trailing spaces
before creating the patch.
OK, done.
Everything looked great -- you even took out some pre-existing line-ending
whitespace.
Thanks,
Carl
On 5/19/09 2:02 PM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
> Jonathan Kulp wrote:
>> Here's a patch incorporating your suggestions, Carl. Thanks for the help.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>
> Carl, when you ge
Jonathan Kulp wrote:
Here's a patch incorporating your suggestions, Carl. Thanks for the help.
Jon
Carl, when you get a moment would you mind checking the patch I sent
last night, and push if it looks ok? I don't think Trevor's going to be
around for a while to do doc patches. Thanks,
+
+Music inside a @code{\transpose} block is absolute unless a
+...@code{\relative} is included.
+
+...@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
+\relative c' {
+ d e
+ \transpose f g {
+d e
+\relative c' {
+ d e
+}
+ }
+}
+...@end lilypond
+
+
@cindex chords and relative octa
On 5/18/09 6:04 PM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
> Carl,
>
> I'm working on your suggestions and have come across a problem.
>
>> \relative c' { \chordmode { c \relative c'' { c }}
>>
>
> This last example won't compile. (It was missing the last curly brace
> but I added it.) Here's the termina
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Kulp writes:
Jonathan> Carl, I'm working on your suggestions and have come across a
Jonathan> problem.
>> \relative c' { \chordmode { c \relative c'' { c }}
>>
Jonathan> This last example won't compile. (It was missing the last
Jonathan> curly brace but I added it
Carl,
I'm working on your suggestions and have come across a problem.
\relative c' { \chordmode { c \relative c'' { c }}
This last example won't compile. (It was missing the last curly brace
but I added it.) Here's the terminal output:
chordmode.ly:1:40: error: syntax error, unexpected T
In message , Carl D. Sorensen
writes
On 5/15/09 3:06 PM, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
In message <200905151909580...@1654122929>, David Pounder
writes
I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but you can also run into
problems using \repeat inside a \relative block if an \unfoldRepeats is
us
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "Carl D. Sorensen"
> To: "Anthony W. Youngman" ,
> "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
> Sent: 15.5.09, 23:43:07
> Subject: Re: relative mode occasionally gets forgotten?
>
>
>
> On 5/15/0
On 5/15/09 3:06 PM, "Anthony W. Youngman"
wrote:
> In message <200905151909580...@1654122929>, David Pounder
> writes
>>
>> I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but you can also run into
>> problems using \repeat inside a \relative block if an \unfoldRepeats is
>> used outside the block. F
In message <200905151909580...@1654122929>, David Pounder
writes
--- Original Message ---
From: "Anthony W. Youngman"
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: 15.5.09, 18:03:43
Subject: Re: relative mode occasionally gets forgotten?
In message <20090515145035.ga3...@nag
On May 15, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Chip wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
I'm not sure that the relative mode "gets forgotten" but that
LilyPond follows its own internal rules. I find that LilyPond
behaves the way that the manual says it does: it picks the closest
pitch. If I wri
> --- Original Message ---
> From: "Anthony W. Youngman"
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Sent: 15.5.09, 18:03:43
> Subject: Re: relative mode occasionally gets forgotten?
>
> In message <20090515145035.ga3...@nagi>, Graham Percival
> writes
>
In message <20090515145035.ga3...@nagi>, Graham Percival
writes
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 06:46:39AM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
First, I think that the information above should be put into 1.1.1 Writing
Pitches as examples under Relative octave entry. There should be three
separate items/ex
On 5/15/09 8:43 AM, "Mats Bengtsson" wrote:
>
>
>
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> Music inside a \transpose or \chordmode block is absolute, unless a
>> \relative is included inside the the \transpose or \chordmode block. When
>> \relative blocks are nested, the innermost relative block a
Tim McNamara wrote:
I'm not sure that the relative mode "gets forgotten" but that LilyPond
follows its own internal rules. I find that LilyPond behaves the way
that the manual says it does: it picks the closest pitch. If I write
{ c2 a2 } it picks the A below that C rather t
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 06:46:39AM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> First, I think that the information above should be put into 1.1.1 Writing
> Pitches as examples under Relative octave entry. There should be three
> separate items/examples:
>
> When relative blocks are nested, the innermost
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
Music inside a \transpose or \chordmode block is absolute, unless a
\relative is included inside the the \transpose or \chordmode block. When
\relative blocks are nested, the innermost relative block applies.
I don't understand why \chordmode (and \chords) changes b
I'm not sure that the relative mode "gets forgotten" but that
LilyPond follows its own internal rules. I find that LilyPond
behaves the way that the manual says it does: it picks the closest
pitch. If I write { c2 a2 } it picks the A below that C rather than
the A abov
On 5/15/09 5:05 AM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
> Chip wrote:
>> Patrick McCarty wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Chip wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is the issue mentioned in the Known Issues for Chapter
>>> 1.1.2 "Transpose" in the Notation Reference. However, the two
>>> sentences
(normal /concert pitch/)"
2.
The text should be changed from
"The relative conversion will not affect \transpose, \chordmode or
\relative sections in its argument. To use relative mode within
transposed music, an additional \relative must be placed inside
\transpose. "
to
"
Chip wrote:
Patrick McCarty wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Chip wrote:
Chip wrote:
I've come across this a couple times - when I am inputting a song it
all
works fine in \relative mode. I do some editing, some copy/paste
from one
part to another, view the resulting pd
Patrick McCarty wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Chip wrote:
Chip wrote:
I've come across this a couple times - when I am inputting a song it all
works fine in \relative mode. I do some editing, some copy/paste from one
part to another, view the resulting pdf and se
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Chip wrote:
> Chip wrote:
>>
>> I've come across this a couple times - when I am inputting a song it all
>> works fine in \relative mode. I do some editing, some copy/paste from one
>> part to another, view the resulting pdf an
Chip wrote:
Chip wrote:
I've come across this a couple times - when I am inputting a song it
all works fine in \relative mode. I do some editing, some copy/paste
from one part to another, view the resulting pdf and see the octaves
are all messed up. The only way to fix them is to use abs
Chip wrote:
I've come across this a couple times - when I am inputting a song it
all works fine in \relative mode. I do some editing, some copy/paste
from one part to another, view the resulting pdf and see the octaves
are all messed up. The only way to fix them is to use absolute o
I've come across this a couple times - when I am inputting a song it all
works fine in \relative mode. I do some editing, some copy/paste from
one part to another, view the resulting pdf and see the octaves are all
messed up. The only way to fix them is to use absolute octave marks in
'm looking for.
in the snippet below I'm using \relative mode and defined "one" and
"two". When I compile i want the second occurrence of "one" to be in the
same octave as the first occurrence. How can I do this using relative mode?
something like:
\octav
Hi everyone,
Seems like there is a fairly simple solution but I couldn't even
think of how to search the manual or email archives for what I'm
looking for.
in the snippet below I'm using \relative mode and defined "one" and
"two". When I compile i want t
Thanks for your reply.
I tried octave check but it simply does not print out the note which I wanted
to be in absolute pitch.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
On 13-May-06, at 9:38 AM, Xiaoyu Ding wrote:
In relative mode, is there a simple way to indicate one note is in
absolute
mode, not relative to the note before it, and not impact the next
note's
position.
I don't know of any. Why not just use an octave check?
Cheers
In relative mode, is there a simple way to indicate one note is in absolute
mode, not relative to the note before it, and not impact the next note's
position.
For example:
\relative c {
...
...
...
...
}
On 24-Dec-05, at 9:50 AM, Kenneth Teh wrote:
--- Gilles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AFAIK, it's the fundamental of the chord that's
taken into
account to determine the following pitch in
\relative mode.
Just to clarify: When I wrote "chord", I meant
something
e chord that's
> taken into
> account to determine the following pitch in
> \relative mode.
>
>
> Gilles
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin
Hi.
> [...] If it's a single note, there's no
> problem, but if the precedent is a chord how does Lily
> figure out the pitch of the following note.
AFAIK, it's the fundamental of the chord that's taken into
account to determine the following pitc
I writing a piano arrangement with polyphony and I
find myself correcting the absolute pitches a lot. I
can't figure out how the octave of the next note is
determined. If it's a single note, there's no
problem, but if the precedent is a chord how does Lily
figure out the pitch of the following no
treated as "closer" than a diminished fifth.
Roman, see the doc page about relative mode for examples (with sample
output).
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
On 6/21/05, Roman V. Isaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'm not a good musician. In other words, I never can tell when
> the next note is going to be octave up or down. On other hand it's
> difficult to enter scores without relative mode, too much typing.
> So
ote:
I'm not a good musician. In other words, I never can tell when
the next note is going to be octave up or down. On other hand it's
difficult to enter scores without relative mode, too much typing.
So how to cope with this? Is it possible to tune vim that it would
show where the
I'm not a good musician. In other words, I never can tell when
the next note is going to be octave up or down. On other hand it's
difficult to enter scores without relative mode, too much typing.
So how to cope with this? Is it possible to tune vim that it would
show where the
At 07:45 PM 3/31/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I have a question about how tritones are treated in relative octave mode.
>The manual says that by default each interval is made to be a fourth or
>less. What happens in the case of a tritone? Is an augmented fourth
>treated differently than a dim
Hi All,
I have a question about how tritones are treated in relative octave mode.
The manual says that by default each interval is made to be a fourth or
less. What happens in the case of a tritone? Is an augmented fourth
treated differently than a diminished fifth, or is it enharmonic?
AFAICT rig
On Friday 27 February 2004 16:48, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The new version of sly will split into parts content
> > formatted in any combination of fields and lines. More
> > features are planned, but it all works and I'll try to get
> > it up on
David Raleigh Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The new version of sly will split into parts content
> formatted in any combination of fields and lines. More
> features are planned, but it all works and I'll try to get
> it up on my website by Monday.
Hi David,
What happens if some error cre
On Thursday 26 February 2004 19:58, donald_j_axel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:57:19 -0500
>
> David Raleigh Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.openguitar.com/files/octly.txt
>
> Ok - creative bid on another solution.
>
> I have considered formating piano and scores something like
described above (i.e., when to
use the tick given two consecutive pitches, especially tritones, etc.);
2. Understanding the rules regarding chords and simultaneous notes.
It's #2 in particular (I think?) that makes the \relative mode seem
"unpredictable" until you are quite comfor
Hello, all --
One more clarification that might help \relative newbies...
Unlike \transpose x {}, the pitch that is chosen to "define" (begin)
the \relative mode block is used ONLY to provide the "relative origin"
for the FIRST NOTE, and has no other effect on future pitche
On Thursday 26 February 2004 11.29, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> I assume that you mean \transpose and nothing else.
> Of course, this is one good approach to avoid having to
> type all the ' and ,. However, I still recommend you to
> give the \relative another try. I think most people on this
> list ag
case in some piano music.
This is EXACTLY what I'm doing. For some reason I have decided to
write all chords top-note down. On my first try in relative mode I
found my subsequent chords leaping off the staff -- each successive
chord would begin about two octaves above the previous, a
clarification that might help \relative newbies...
>
> Unlike \transpose x {}, the pitch that is chosen to "define" (begin)
> the \relative mode block is used ONLY to provide the "relative origin"
> for the FIRST NOTE, and has no other effect on future pitches.
>
problems using relative mode with my chaconne
experiment. But whenever it becomes too complicated, I break the music
into very short sequences (sometimes only one bar¹), so I can see where
one polyphonic voice ends (and wether to apply octave switches to the
start of the next polyphonic voice).
I
some reason I have decided to
> write all chords top-note down. On my first try in relative mode I
> found my subsequent chords leaping off the staff -- each successive
> chord would begin about two octaves above the previous, and the notes
> within the chord where not in the octaves I ha
more than 10 bars I guess this becomes
more and more of an issue.
So personal tastes vary. Use what you like.
It takes a fraction of a second to enter a lot of ''''
Therefore use transpose for what it is meant to do, not as a
relative replacement.
In certain contexts you eve
> ²) Hey, any Eclipse/Java hackers around? What about a LilyPond plugin
> for Eclipse, with refactoring support?
Well, I am working on the plugin for jEdit. I thought that an Eclipse plugin
would also be funny to work with, but I wanted to have an editor that starts
faster than Eclipse.
However,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Consider that you have to find the \relative X specification
> somewhere 400 lines above if you are reading 100 bar - piece of
> music.
This can be remedied with the new octave check functions:
c='
ensures that this relative c will be c'
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
On Thursday 26 February 2004 02:22, GoochRules! wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Is it proper to use \transcribe c c'' { ... } to convert the upper
> staff for piano to an octave where not so many 's need to be
> specified? I attempted to use \relative c'', but found that mode to
> be much too unpredictable
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:57:19 -0500
David Raleigh Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.openguitar.com/files/octly.txt
Ok - creative bid on another solution.
I have considered formating piano and scores something like this:
%
{ a | b c' d' b | c' d' e' c' | d' e' f2 |
{
> I attempted to use \relative c'', but found that mode to be much too
> unpredictable for my tastes.
It's entirely predictable: if a note a up to a fourth from the previous
one, you don't need a ' or a ,; otherwise, you need one (or more) comma or
tick. What's the problem?
--
http://www.mupsy
I assume that you mean \transpose and nothing else.
Of course, this is one good approach to avoid having to
type all the ' and ,. However, I still recommend you to
give the \relative another try. I think most people on this
list agree that it's very convenient once you get used to it.
The basic ide
Greetings,
Is it proper to use \transcribe c c'' { ... } to convert the upper
staff for piano to an octave where not so many 's need to be specified?
I attempted to use \relative c'', but found that mode to be much too
unpredictable for my tastes. Is there another/better way to do this?
--Ma
Paul Scott wrote:
> How about
interTwo = \notes\relative c' {
r8 r16 fis fis4 r gis
ais4 r8 ais gis4 ais
}
instead?
Paul Scott
Thanks, I tried it similarly before posting the original, but backwards
- I put the relative in front of the notes and it didn't work. Cool,
chip wrote:
>
> I am using relative mode to enter notes, and have defined a variable to
> hold a phrase, which contains one ' mark on the first note. When I call
> that variable in the piece multiple times consequitively, it is raised
> an octave each time because of the &
chip wrote:
I am using relative mode to enter notes, and have defined a variable
to hold a phrase, which contains one ' mark on the first note. When I
call that variable in the piece multiple times consequitively, it is
raised an octave each time because of the ' mark. I can't
I am using relative mode to enter notes, and have defined a variable to
hold a phrase, which contains one ' mark on the first note. When I call
that variable in the piece multiple times consequitively, it is raised
an octave each time because of the ' mark. I can't add a , to
a4 a e e fis fis e2 d4 d cis cis b b a2
instead of (current relative mode):
a4 a e' e fis fis e2 d4 d cis cis b b a2
or (current absolute mode):
a,4 a, e e fis fis e2 d4 d cis cis b, b, a2,
/Mats
David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 03:11 pm, Rune Zedeler wrote:
I have
However, you are certainly not alone, since a new octave check
feature was added in version 2.0 of LilyPond, see
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.0/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/Octave-check.html
It's nice, but it's only a control feature. I thought more of some kind
of making entry more explic
"only greater than an
> octave". What does your second "c" in the major scale mean? Is that
> the low c or the high c? A human assumes that the second c is the
> high c, but a computer needs some way to be told that. Relative mode
> lets you input a scale as c d e f g
ick to enter and a more verbose syntax
> that's easier to understand and remember.
Making it available to people who would use it a lot would do no harm.
I would be willing to insert a colon every measure if it were useful to
me, but starting every measure with \octave? Forget it. \octav
> > Twinkle twinkle as
> > a4 a e e fis fis e2 d4 d cis cis b b a2
> > instead of (current relative mode):
> > a4 a e' e fis fis e2 d4 d cis cis b b a2
> > or (current absolute mode):
> > a,4 a, e e fis fis e2 d4 d cis cis b, b, a2,
> >
> >
low c or
the high c? A human assumes that the second c is the high c, but a computer
needs some way to be told that. Relative mode lets you input a scale as
c d e f g a b c
and absolute mode lets you input the same scale as
c d e f g a b c'
> The point for me is that if I know the range o
ntages of both, etc.. To quote:
> >
> > "So »c d e d c« and »c d' e' d, c,« would mean the same thing."
>
> I don't understand what you mean.
> It is true that in "relativetwo" c d e d c and c d' e' d, c, mean the
> same thing (namely the s
the same thing."
I don't understand what you mean.
It is true that in "relativetwo" c d e d c and c d' e' d, c, mean the
same thing (namely the same as c d e d c in the old relative mode).
But that doesn't matter. A \relativetwo statement or something could
sel
On Friday 24 October 2003 03:11 am, Rune Zedeler wrote:
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> > The proposed new relative mode has more typing than the present
> > relative mode, yet it is no more readable, so it seems to me to
> > have the disadvantages of both and the advantages o
David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
The proposed new relative mode has more typing than the present
relative mode, yet it is no more readable, so it seems to me to have
the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither.
If you are referring to my proposal then it is not true for intervals
less
On Thursday 23 October 2003 02:47 am, Aaron wrote:
> Well just to add more fuel to the fire.
> I am curious how all this will the ability to analyse lilypond
> scores?
That is the point. Relative mode makes note entry faster at the cost
of making reading the source.ly more difficult.
&
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
